How much time before twins?

[Red Air Rambo]

You aren't helping my lust for a 337

Sorry...come to Tulsa...I'll let you fly mine...it will just make it worse.

 

[wabower]

The IOS screen on the B-200 sim has a greasy spot where we pointed to show the crew where they hit the ground at Cheyenne during V-1 cuts and S/E miss with A/F failure. With failed rudder boost it was even worse.

Really getting into thread drift here. Again we are saying the same thing Ted. My comment earlier was there was not much the OP could do to help himself with the problem of low hours and moving to a twin. One poster thought retract time would make a difference. The insurance company is a pretty good indication of risk. Remember they are betting you don't screw up and you are betting you will. This is the nature of insurance. Their rates are based on risk. They are real good at determining risk, or they go out of business.
Your post agrees with my oppinion that single engine time of any kind is not going to make a lot of difference. If you are talking about a 3000 hour pilot with a couple hundred hours in actual then the insurance company will give some credit for that. The difference in 300 hours and 700 hours not so much.
In my oppinion if you put the average 500 hour pilot in a light twin and one of the engines goes south just as you reach for the gear even in VFR, chances are high he is going to die. Now make that a launch into 300 and 1 and almost for certain he will die. I know that is a harsh statement. I did not know this untill my first sim training. Me, you and most everyone with a ME rating got it the same way. In all of our training we always knew what to expect. You know the drill, 2000 AGL, climb power at Vy and you are going to get an engine pulled then go and shoot the approach. The first time it happens and you are not expecting it, well does "deer in the headlights" mean anything to you. A good sim instructor will catch you not expecting it. Then and only then will you know how good you are. It will get you down off your high horse pretty quick. And even with the best of sim instructors in the back of your mind you know he may pull an engine at any moment. I am fortunate that I fly an aircraft with exceptional SE performance. Standard day at gross, 1500 feet density altitude and once cleaned up will climb at least 700 FPM through 10,000 feet. However, if you don't catch that the auto feather has failed, well let's just say it ain't pretty. You can bet you sweet rear end that now when I advance the throttles and the "auto feather armed" light don't come on I WILL know it.
I guess what I have hinting at in this thread is any pilot that is moving up to high performance, complex, ME aircraft PLEASE get regular sim training. Even if it don't make you a better pilot (it will) you will at least know what you and/or your plane can't do. I promise I am putting the soap box away for the night.

 

[poadeleted20]

In my oppinion if you put the average 500 hour pilot in a light twin and one of the engines goes south just as you reach for the gear even in VFR, chances are high he is going to die. Now make that a launch into 300 and 1 and almost for certain he will die.

Given the capabilities of light piston twins and my experience as an ME instructor, I don't think that is limited to 500-hour pilots. It's darn near impossible to fly a light piston twin out of an engine failure before Vyse with the gear down, and anyone who tries it is likely to die unless the airplane is pretty light. However, proper training can teach ME trainees this even without experiencing it in a sim, and even high time pilots are not immune to that problem if they aren't made to understand early in their training that the only solution in that situation is to retard both throttles and land on the best surface ahead.

 

[Ted]

In my oppinion if you put the average 500 hour pilot in a light twin and one of the engines goes south just as you reach for the gear even in VFR, chances are high he is going to die.

That is quite probable.

Now make that a launch into 300 and 1 and almost for certain he will die.

Yes, although that may also be true for experienced pilots as well. I do agree with the regular training (and regular sim training if you can).

Now let's look at this in a single. At V1 cut, you just land the plane (perhaps crash the plane) and hopefully walk away, perhaps die. In that case, you have an advantage to the single (assuming you have runway).

Let's look at other times for engine failures. That Queen Air pilot obviously did something wrong, uncertain what. Now the people I know who've had actual engine failures - it's been after V1, once some altitude and airspeed has been attained. And in all cases, they made successful landings, had the engines repaired, and lived to fly the exact same airplane another day.

There are no NTSB reports on the people who lose an engine and make it back to land safely.

 

[Ted]

Given the capabilities of light piston twins and my experience as an ME instructor, I don't think that is limited to 500-hour pilots. It's darn near impossible to fly a light piston twin out of an engine failure before Vyse with the gear down, and anyone who tries it is likely to die unless the airplane is pretty light. However, proper training can teach ME trainees this even without experiencing it in a sim, and even high time pilots are not immune to that problem if they aren't made to understand early in their training that the only solution in that situation is to retard both throttles and land on the best surface ahead.

Yep... trying to fly out of certain situations is a bad idea.

 

[ronnieh]

Ron, your comment is one of the reasons I no longer instruct. In fact I have not renewed my instructor certificates in years. Each take off has to be evaluated. A turbo 310, one passenger, half fuel, standard day, DA 1500 feet it is doable. Same plane, gross weight, 20 deg above standard, 5000 foot DA, not going to happen. It is hard to teach every scenerio. Most ME training is done at light weights and with the expectation of engine failure. One way is to teach that if you lose one before gear retraction is land straight ahead. It is a little hard to teach that in the plane. I know sim training is not practical for all ME aircraft. Sim training is available for many light twins and most all cabin class. I guess I caused this thread drift but, I feel strongly that most initial ME training is woefully inadaquate. I know mine was and but for the grace of God...
If you do not practice these worst case situations and have EVERY take off planned as to what you will do at each phase of flight then you are rolling the dice. I simply do not know how to practice these situatilns in the plane. JMHO.

 

[Ted]

One way is to teach that if you lose one before gear retraction is land straight ahead. It is a little hard to teach that in the plane.

What we did was pull the mixture on the takeoff roll. If you have the appropriate response built-in to your head, you pull the throttles back and it goes normally. The problems are the people who don't recognize the engine failure and keep going.

I know sim training is not practical for all ME aircraft. Sim training is available for many light twins and most all cabin class. I guess I caused this thread drift but, I feel strongly that most initial ME training is woefully inadaquate. I know mine was and but for the grace of God...

I'd say it's not limited to initial ME training. A lot of training in general is woefully inadequate. At the same time, we're all here by the grace of God. Those that aren't, either don't recognize it or haven't been flying long enough. We've all made mistakes that we shouldn't have made. Some days, your number's up.

What makes the situation worse are the typical "rating in a weekend" sort of ME situations, or ratings from some of the places notorious for doing a bad job anyway. MEIs who just barely made the cut for legally getting the rating, and have no idea what real ME situations are like, and can't go practice them.

If you do not practice these worst case situations and have EVERY take off planned as to what you will do at each phase of flight then you are rolling the dice. I simply do not know how to practice these situatilns in the plane. JMHO.

+1000

Practicing it in the plane realistically is tough. And since there are certain things you won't practice like V1 cuts, the sim is the only place to do it. What you can do (and what every good ME pilot should do and should be trained to do) is to have every second of flight planned for what you do in event of an engine failure. Once you're up in cruise, things are easier. For the initial takeoff roll and climb out, that's the danger zone.

 

[ronnieh]

Exactly right Ted. I have lost an engine 4 times in a piston twin. It was never an emergency, never declared one. However it was always VFR, at cruise. From throttle up for the next 5 minutes. I just don't know how to train for that in a plane. Yes you can pull an engine on the roll maybe even up to 60 KIAS. How do you practice engine out just as the nose wheel come off the ground? As an instructor I would not do it. As a student if I survived, then me and the instructor is going to have a discussion. The part of the flight that is so dangerous can not be practiced or even experienced in the real plane. Well perhaps you can experience it one time. That is the part that is so frustrating to me as an instructor, which is why I quit instructing.

 

[wabower]

I think that overcoming "hope springs eternal" element of decision-making is probably the most difficult part of both training and subsequent encounters with potentially disastrous situations. Which do you think is longer, the list of dead pilots who almost made it or the list of live pilots who barely did?

Given the capabilities of light piston twins and my experience as an ME instructor, I don't think that is limited to 500-hour pilots. It's darn near impossible to fly a light piston twin out of an engine failure before Vyse with the gear down, and anyone who tries it is likely to die unless the airplane is pretty light. However, proper training can teach ME trainees this even without experiencing it in a sim, and even high time pilots are not immune to that problem if they aren't made to understand early in their training that the only solution in that situation is to retard both throttles and land on the best surface ahead.

 

[Ted]

I think that overcoming "hope springs eternal" element of decision-making is probably the most difficult part of both training and subsequent encounters with potentially disastrous situations.

That is where vigilance and training are critical. Some people just won't ever learn it, though.

Which do you think is longer, the list of dead pilots who almost made it or the list of live pilots who barely did?

The problem is, there aren't reliable statistics of this since the live pilots who barely made it. I know you know a lot more pilots in the former, but I know more pilots in the latter. I also know pilots who are working their way towards the former.

 

[Skylane81E]

Sorry...come to Tulsa...I'll let you fly mine...it will just make it worse.

Next time I'm out that way I'll plan on taking you up on that

 

[Everskyward]

Same plane, gross weight, 20 deg above standard, 5000 foot DA, not going to happen.

This was basically the scenario for almost every one of the takeoffs when I was flying the C-320 since we were based at a 5,900 MSL airport. I knew it was not going to climb out on one engine and the only thing to do was lower the nose. In that case it would be a worse situation than losing the engine in the C-206, which I also flew, since the 320 was faster and heavier. On the other hand, if you lost one engine in the air at a reasonable altitude it was a better situation than being in the 206.

I agree that many people who fly piston twins seem overly optimistic about their single engine performance, but I know I have a strong bias based on where I learned to fly them. I also agree with Wayne that pilots of every experience level are overly optimistic about their own performance even if they are in an airplane which is capable of climbing out on one engine.

 

[wabower]

Even more alarming is that the pilots who haven't actually experienced all of the disorienting events have no idea what to expect or any notion how they will react, especially to the surprise element that they've never seen before, but somehow think their training and skills are adequate to cope with whatever might occur. Unfortunately it often doesn't turn out that way. As it stands now, most of our light-twin pilot population is woefully under-trained in ill-prepared for the most life-threatening events they may encounter. Not their fault, since nobody wants to die in a training accident, including me, but a huge disservice to them and their passengers.

After obtaining the MEI, I knew that I would never instruct in a light twin for all the reasons you mentioned, and instead devoted all of my twin training to sim work. The most significant difference between sim and in-plane training is that the sim IP can allow or even initiate dangerous situations at critical phases of flight and then sit back and watch he student do whatever he thinks might save his ass. If it works he's a hero, if it doesn't he's a splat mark on a computer screen, but in either case his primary exposure to physical harm is falling off the walkway in the sim bay.

The part of the flight that is so dangerous can not be practiced or even experienced in the real plane. Well perhaps you can experience it one time. That is the part that is so frustrating to me as an instructor, which is why I quit instructing.

 

[Artiom]

Thread drift...
Skymaster sounds like a really cool design that incorporates the best of the both worlds - single and twin. Why that design is not widely adopted in GA?
I never flew one and if someone in the Bay area who has one can give me a ride in it I would appreciate that.

 

[Skylane81E]

Thread drift...
Skymaster sounds like a really cool design that incorporates the best of the both worlds - single and twin. Why that design is not widely adopted in GA?
I never flew one and if someone in the Bay area who has one can give me a ride in it I would appreciate that.

It's not the greatest thing on two wings, biggest gripe i hear is that it isn't as quiet as other twins

Still want one.

 

[Ted]

Even more alarming is that the pilots who haven't actually experienced all of the disorienting events have no idea what to expect or any notion how they will react, especially to the surprise element that they've never seen before, but somehow think their training and skills are adequate to cope with whatever might occur.

I see this to be the case with single engine pilots, too. Most people are very bad at being introspective and correctly evaluating their own abilities.

Personally, I've never been to a sim. I'd welcome a chance to come to the sim and let an instructor fail things on me at the worst times. During my training (and when I practice myself) I do it as much as can be done safely.

Unfortunately it often doesn't turn out that way. As it stands now, most of our light-twin pilot population is woefully under-trained in ill-prepared for the most life-threatening events they may encounter. Not their fault, since nobody wants to die in a training accident, including me, but a huge disservice to them and their passengers.

While I'd agree that a good number don't go out and do the recurrent training that they should, and therefore just hope they can make it in if anything happens (much less if the ever-dreaded V1 cut occurs), I'm not convinced the average single engine pilot is any better prepared for the life-threatening events that may occur.

 

[ronnieh]

Ted, I think Wabower is saying, like I said, that the training can not be done. The most critical phase of flight in a twin can not be demostrated nor practiced in the real plane. You can not recreate the element of surprise and there is a significant risk you may not survive. Even in the sim the element of surprise is not as great as the real thing because you know at sometime it is going to happen. If we could keep that same expectation in the real plane it would help some. However, I nor anyone else does that on a consistant bases.

 

[Ted]

Ted, I think Wabower is saying, like I said, that the training can not be done. The most critical phase of flight in a twin can not be demostrated nor practiced in the real plane. You can not recreate the element of surprise and there is a significant risk you may not survive. Even in the sim the element of surprise is not as great as the real thing because you know at sometime it is going to happen. If we could keep that same expectation in the real plane it would help some. However, I nor anyone else does that on a consistant bases.

Ronnie, I agree with you 100%.

What I'm getting from Wayne is that nobody is safe in twins, without a practical solution or acceptance of risks. I fully know that I could easily die every time I get into a plane. My goal, as a safe pilot, is to do what I can to minimize those risks. I then accept the fact that, if fate is against me that day, I may just be SOL.

 

[ronnieh]

Ted, this thread has went in every direction so far. And I guess a lot of that is my fault. I found the thread interesting in that we hear all of this discussion about single verses twin and how dangerous general aviation is and on and on.

I don't know why the OP wants to move to a light twin. Maybe he thinks it is safer. I think any reasonable pilot would accept that it depends on what phase of flight and the proficiency of the pilot.This is true whether you have 1 engine or 4 engines. My problem is (and the reason I quit instructing) there is no way I know of to teach a multi engine pilot how to deal with the first 5 minutes of a flight useing the airplane. We teach a new pilot as I was taught how to secure the engine, how to do a restart, and the list goes on. We all went through the same thing. We jump through all the hoops with the student. The DPE jumps through all the hoops with the new pilot. We have preached to the student on the dangers of trying to continue a flight that exceeds the capability of the plane. Everyone out there that has instructed knows what I am talking about. The next day the freshly certificated pilot loses an engine 10 feet above the runway with his wife, three kids and the family dog. I can't deal with that as an instructor.
The OP asked a simple question. How many hours does he need to move into a light twin? Beats me. I think your answer is the best, depends on how much risk you are willing to take. IMO general aviation is riskier than many activities and safer than others. I will say, the old saying that the most dangerous thing about flying is the drive to the airport is not true, especially if you are talking about a low time pilot in a small plane.
I will not speak for Wayne but, if he is saying that flying light twins carries considerable risk and in some phases of flight more risk than a comparable SE then I might agree. Ya'll be careful out there.

 

[poadeleted20]

Exactly right Ted. I have lost an engine 4 times in a piston twin. It was never an emergency, never declared one.

I'm not seeing how losing an engine in a 2-engine airplane would not be at least "a condition of being concerned about safety and of requiring timely but not immediate assistance; a potential distress condition," but maybe that's just my conservative nature.

Yes you can pull an engine on the roll maybe even up to 60 KIAS.

Maybe you can, but I agree with the FAA's practical test prohibition on pulling an engine above 1/2 Vmc on the takeoff roll. Based on the times I've done that with ME trainees at 1/2 Vmc, it's exciting enough when you do that to teach the lesson and make the impression.

How do you practice engine out just as the nose wheel come off the ground?

The same way the Army has its troops practice bleeding. Some things don't need to be practiced in order to make the point.

As an instructor I would not do it.

Good.

That is the part that is so frustrating to me as an instructor, which is why I quit instructing.

I've found I can produce the desired behavior without actually doing that, and maybe that's why I'm still instructing.

 

[wabower]

Lest there's any doubt, I'm saying that multi-engine pilots who train only in the airplane are woefully undertrained to prepare and deal with many of the situations that are the most dangerous and therefore the most likely to kill them.

It's not that everybody from the FAA administrator down to (or maybe up to) the airport dog doesn't understand the issue, it's that they have simply decided that status quo is good to go. Nor does it mean that some of the pilots don't operate safely based on what they know and have been taught, it's that they haven't been taught enough of what they really should know when/if the cheese gets binding.

When the subject is discussed among pilots, the default danger is engine loss after takeoff or OEI missed approach, both obvious biggies that pilots should experience first-hand without the danger of being killed in the process. Unfortunately, this set of problems is only the tip of the iceberg.

High-speed aborts on the runway can't be practiced either, so the pilots who smugly say "I just stay on the ground until blue line" don't have the benefit of the wild-mouse ride that can ensue when something breaks, even if it's just a tire tube.

Nor have pilots whose after-takeoff calls include "gear up, yaw damp" ever seen the snap roll that can result from a yaw-damp hard-over, and to then have the opportunity to decide if they might want to delay the call until they have achieved a comfortable altitude. How many twin pilots have been inverted 130* with nose pitched 35* to the ground while driving around at 5,000' talking to approach? I didn't hear him mention 757 traffic, did you? Now what? Continue the roll, or fight back the other way?

Icing system failures, conflicting pitot-static instruments, electrical, fuel system and landing gear malfuctions, prop governor failures, partial electrical system failure (like the inverter that killed 10 OSU basketball players and staff) pressurization problems (too much or too little) trim runaway and a few more pages of other stuff they should know about.

Sim training isn't the end-all to twin-engine aircraft accidents any more than the BRS system is a panacea for all of the problems in singles, but there is simply no argument as to the value of the training imparted.

I'd also bet that almost all of those who support sim training as a part of M/E training were at one time twin pilots who had not received such training and were themselves amazed and appalled when they (finally) learned how much knowledge they were lacking in spite of their efforts to stay in the top half of the class.

Ronnie, I agree with you 100%.

What I'm getting from Wayne is that nobody is safe in twins, without a practical solution or acceptance of risks. I fully know that I could easily die every time I get into a plane. My goal, as a safe pilot, is to do what I can to minimize those risks. I then accept the fact that, if fate is against me that day, I may just be SOL.

 

[ronnieh]

Ron, I went back and checked. I do not believe I said I was not concerned with the loss of an engine. It was just not an emergency to me in those particular situations. On your other comments. I know this is going to sound disrespectful. I do not mean it as such. I would not pull an engine at 60 KIAS in a light twin either but what happens if the pilot loses an engine at 60 KIAS and he has never experienced it? Never felt the wild ride that results. I would not be trying to make a point, making points will not give you skills, only information. I would rather practice handling the situation. You nor any other instructor can teach this part of the flight in the plane. From the take off roll untill 1000AGL simply can not be taught in a light twin. Your comment on "practice bleeding" simply makes no sense. You may think you can get the desired behavior without actually doing it but I think you are wrong. How would you know you would have the desired behavior if the student has no chance to demonstrate it. In fact Wabower summed it up pretty well. You may be teaching it the FAA way but you do your students a disservice if you leave them with the impression they can handle loss of an engine in a light twin 10 feet above the runway. The last statement by Wabower sums it up for me. I did not know what I did not know untill my first time in Navajo school. I had 2500 hours in a Navajo, several IPC's in the Navajo when I went to my first sim school. At the end of three days I at least knew what I did not know. Again, Ron, no offense is intended. We simply disagree on the quality of training in light twins. The problem for me is I do now know what I did not know and it is scary. I also realized I can not teach what I do not know.

 

[Morne]

This has generated a really great, lively discussion!

My big takeaway thus far is that simulator training is very important. So, how/where does one go about getting this ME simulator training? Sounds like it'd be a good thing to do in winter when the weather sucks for normal flying (this winter I'm doing the IR ground school, and like I said I've got years before twin time).

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, I went back and checked. I do not believe I said I was not concerned with the loss of an engine. It was just not an emergency to me in those particular situations.

...and that's a point on which I disagree strongly. Having personally witnessed a light twin go in because the pilot did not consider it an emergency, I'm pretty solid on this point. Pilots have this aversion to considering things an emergency, and that refusal to accept the seriousness of the situation has proven fatal more times than I can count.

On your other comments. I know this is going to sound disrespectful. I do not mean it as such. I would not pull an engine at 60 KIAS in a light twin either

Good -- I must have misunderstood what you wrote.

but what happens if the pilot loses an engine at 60 KIAS and he has never experienced it? Never felt the wild ride that results.

What happens when a solder gets shot in combat and has never experienced the sensation? There are certain things which are too dangerous to experience in training, which is why the FAA dropped the Vmc engine cut from the multiengine PTS a long time ago.

I would not be trying to make a point, making points will not give you skills, only information. I would rather practice handling the situation.

So would I, but there's no way to do that safely in the plane, and sims just aren't always an option, so you teach it the best you can without actually doing it.

You nor any other instructor can teach this part of the flight in the plane. From the take off roll untill 1000AGL simply can not be taught in a light twin.

I'd disagree with that. You can safely teach engine failures on the takeoff rule up to about half Vmc, and then again once Vyse/Vsse is achieved with the gear up. It's only that space between 1/2 Vmc and Vyse/Vsse which cannot be safely done in the airplane.

Your comment on "practice bleeding" simply makes no sense. You may think you can get the desired behavior without actually doing it but I think you are wrong. How would you know you would have the desired behavior if the student has no chance to demonstrate it.

There are no certainties in life, but you do the best you can with what you've got.

In fact Wabower summed it up pretty well. You may be teaching it the FAA way but you do your students a disservice if you leave them with the impression they can handle loss of an engine in a light twin 10 feet above the runway.

I agree, but my ME trainees don't leave with that impression, and I don't have to kill them to impress them otherwise. That's what I meant about practicing bleeding -- we don't actually have to shoot our soldiers to convince them that getting shot is a bad idea.

Again, Ron, no offense is intended. We simply disagree on the quality of training in light twins. The problem for me is I do now know what I did not know and it is scary. I also realized I can not teach what I do not know.

Well, I do know that you can't fly out of an engine failure in that no-man's land, and I was taught it from the beginning of my light plane ME training, and I made it part of my ME takeoff briefing and procedures, and I do the same for my ME trainees. Perhaps the problem for you is that you weren't taught that from the beginning of your ME training, which to me is the fault of the initial ME training program you went through.

 

[poadeleted20]

My big takeaway thus far is that simulator training is very important.

It's great to have, but it's not essential to safe ME flying if you get good ME training.

So, how/where does one go about getting this ME simulator training?

There are several outfits which offer ME sim training, including SimCom and RTC, but the choice of aircraft is extremely limited at the lower end (primarily the Seneca) and the cost is pretty steep.

Sounds like it'd be a good thing to do in winter when the weather sucks for normal flying (this winter I'm doing the IR ground school, and like I said I've got years before twin time).

You can do it now if you want, but if it will be years before you do any ME flying, I'd suggest putting it aside until then unless you've got money to burn.

 

[Ted]

Thanks for the clarification, Wayne. We're in complete agreement. Just saying it differently.

 

[ronnieh]

And the plane you saw go in would not have crashed if the pilot had declared an emergency? My particular situation was simply not an emergency. I flew the plane to a suitable airport and landed, end of story. I knew the planes very well, it was CAVU.
It seems you agree that certain phases of flight can not be taught so we just skip it and hope for the best. I am glad that works for you, I really am.
Morne, there are several places to get the training as Ron mentioned. The Barron is taught at several different places and some of the Cessnas are starting to show up. The insurance companies drive the sim requirements. More and more policies are requireing sim training. When I started flying Navajos I had never heard of sim training for the Navajo, now it is quite common. I think this trend will continue as the insurance companies realize how much money it will save them. 30 years ago only turbo jets, then about 20 years ago all turbine aircraft and now it is trickeling down to the piston twins. The FAA and many instructors (not you Ron, you stated it would be great to have) are just too stuck in their ways to change, again the insurance companies will lead the way in safety. Unlike Ron, I do think it is essential however, it simply is not available.
This has been a good discussion. Like all discussions there are different oppinions.

 

[wabower]

The airplane didn't live up to it's expectations. Maintenance problems plagued it from the outset, many of which were the result of the push-pull configuration and related to rear-engine cooling.

The improved accident rates that Cessna anticipated did not materialize due to poor training (as always) and pilot stupidity. These comedy routines included forgetting to start the rear engine and other moves worthy of inclusion in Keystone Kop Cartoons.

The economics weren't good and demand plummeted. I owned a T-210 when a friend bought a late-model 337 and offered me a demo ride for which I volunteered to pay for fuel. Turned out to be the same ride in the same cabin for the same amout of time but much noisier and shakier with almost 2X fuel burn. No thanks.



.

Thread drift...
Skymaster sounds like a really cool design that incorporates the best of the both worlds - single and twin. Why that design is not widely adopted in GA?
I never flew one and if someone in the Bay area who has one can give me a ride in it I would appreciate that.

 

[wabower]

SimCom has purchased a bunch of ME sims, as well as some singles, some from FSI. Many of them are now located in SimCom's facility near DFW, (formerly PrestoSim.) When I owned the T-210 I trained at FSI's facility in Wichita, but I think that sim was part of the package that was sold to SimCom. The Wichita facility also offered sim training in the 340 and 421, so I trained there for those airplanes as well.

This has generated a really great, lively discussion!

My big takeaway thus far is that simulator training is very important. So, how/where does one go about getting this ME simulator training? Sounds like it'd be a good thing to do in winter when the weather sucks for normal flying (this winter I'm doing the IR ground school, and like I said I've got years before twin time).

 

[N747JB]

I trained at the DFW location as well, back in 2000, it was QuickTurn then, I really don't know why they called it QuickTurn, it was the same 12 day type rating that everybody else offered. They had the 421 then as well.
Back the the OP, I had 490 hours TT in a 182, my IR and a fresh multi from ATP when we bought a 310R.
In a piston twin there is an area that is almost a "no man's land" that you have to deal with, lift off to 500 feet AGL. It's one place in every flight that you are the most at risk and the area where every piston twin pilot says a silent prayer. It's not impossible to handle, but it's a time when your options are very limited and your responses MUST be correct, no second chances.

SimCom has purchased a bunch of ME sims, as well as some singles, some from FSI. Many of them are now located in SimCom's facility near DFW, (formerly PrestoSim.) When I owned the T-210 I trained at FSI's facility in Wichita, but I think that sim was part of the package that was sold to SimCom. The Wichita facility also offered sim training in the 340 and 421, so I trained there for those airplanes as well.

 

[BellyUpFish]

Vmc is bad, m'kay?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqmomTUVsAw&feature=youtu.be

 

[Lance F]

In the Wayne/ Capt Ron debate, I have some practical experience I'd like to add. I got my initial ME rating with qualified and competent instructors who taught engine out and single engine operations in a safe way, yet covering what had to be covered. So, I thought I knew what to do like most ME pilots.

Well a couple of years later I was fortunate and was sent to school, SimCom Orlando in this case, for an initial LRJet type rating. Well, I had trouble, serious ego crushing trouble, with both pre and post V1 cuts. If I'd had a take off engine failure in real life just based on my ME initial, the outcome might not have been so good. The instructors at SimCom were good and willing to work with me. After this sim practice I did get it and was able to control the simulated airplane to ATP standards in a variety of V1 cut scenarios.

So, IMHO and personal experience, the engine out training that one can safely do in a real airplane may not be enough.

I sat in on another crew's sim session and watched an experienced King Air pilot do a Vmc roll and crash in a V1 cut situation. It was an eye opening experience (and hard on the sim's hydraulics )

 

[gismo]

No, I am not about to rush out and start my multi-engine training. I want to get my instrument rating first and build up plenty of time in my 182.

But the question is, how much time? I suppose there are some milestones that insurance companies look for, right? Or will all that single-engine, high-performance time be meaningless when I start looking into twins?

Chronologically, I have about 5 years before I can even think of affording to feed a twin (that's when the house will be paid off). If I fly 120-ish hours a year (like in 2011) then that'll be 740 hours. Is that enough?

If you've got 500+ TT, 100+ retract, and an IR you're probably insurable in most 4-6 place non-pressurized piston twins. As already mentioned there will likely be requirements for 20 or more hours of time in make/model before you can carry pax and they may specify certain initial and recurrent training for the first year or two. Plus you'll pay a 50-100% premium surcharge until you get at least 100 make/model.

When I bought the Baron I fly I had a whopping 20 hrs of multi time of which about 5 were in the same make/model. I did have an IR, around 800 TT, and 500 complex (much of which was in a Bonanza which is a single engine version of a Baron). At that time all the insurer required of me was a "checkout" (took about 1 hr) and 5 hrs more make/model before carrying passengers but things have gotten a bit tighter since then (this was 1996).

I know we have some piston twin lovers here. What concerns me are some of the local instructors who have nothing but contempt for twins. They can't all be entirely wrong, right?

Flying most light twins can be safer than a single with similar performance but this requires a greater involvement with recurrent training. Most pilots can pass a AMEL checkride with 5-10 hrs of training but at that point (or worse yet a few months later) most such pilots won't be capable of dealing with the loss of one engine. Amazingly that's true even if the engine failure occurs in cruise flight at 8000 AGL. It's fairly common for an inexperienced pilot or one who gets the rating and never trains again to lose control while attempting to land on one engine after successfully managing to reach the airport after one quits, hence the notion that "the second engine gets you to the scene of the accident".

So I strongly urge you to consider that it's far more important to become and remain competent than to qualify for insurance. That means staying engaged in fairly frequent (e.g. every 6 months or less at first, tapering off to once a year after a few hundred hours and a couple years) recurrent OEI training as well as adopting a deliberate approach to operating the airplane as safely as you can (e.g. flying below MGW to improve SE performance, briefing for an engine failure before every takeoff, using the longest runway available for takeoff even if it means a long taxi and/or a significant crosswind, expecting to abort a takeoff if one quits before the gear is up and you've gotten to Vyse, etc).

 

[bbchien]

The problem isn't total time. It's TEMPERAMENT.

I have resolved never to fly with an ME pilot who does not verbalize the predeparture briefing. If he does not, I remind him. If he does not respond satisfactorily, I exit the aircraft. I kid you not.

You have to have the temperament to do the mental calculation for every departure. If you do not have that, don't go multi. PLEASE. If you do have that, you can start anytime.

********
When I brought my Seneca II home, dual runout, Ferry permit, gear down, I fixed necessary squawks and then took it over to the big airport and ran out a set of tires and brakes determining Distance for Zero-->Vyse-->Zero under a variety of weight, temp, baro and wind conditions. The senior ATC guys still call me the "guy with the donuts".

I put just short of 1,000 points on the excel spreadsheet and no, I will not publish it.

The practical conclusion is that for operation off my 3,600 foot home strip I need to be about 200 undergross to get the engine failure/fly away and Engine failure/stop window small enough to be acceptable.

When I teach, I do do a throttle pull at the ILS missed App. point and make the candidate fly a full go around. It's a struggle because I have 50 pound bundles of magazines that we belt into the seats to bet to gross. I've seen some really really big eyeballs.

I only do throttle pulls below 40% of redline on the ground;
Fuel kills are done at ~60% power, or are done outside the IAF to the ILS at 1800 agl when the runway is a make.

I'll also kill an engine anytime my student's hand is not guarding the throttle. Throttle kill if below 3000 agl, fuel if above. They get it really quickly.

 

[ronnieh]

Lance, I am glad to see one more here besides me and Wayne that understand how inadaquate ME training is.

 

[bbchien]

Two sides to every story. My partner might have agreed with you until Jan 31, 1987 until whatever redundancy he thought he had turned out to be an illusion. His orphaned kids might wish he had stayed with the single.

Wayne, I know this is painful. But that accident probably had nothing to do with redundant powerplants. Disoriented, falling out the sky from FL 210 could be anything- cabin pressure loss and hypoxia, failed gyro, unlikely failed vacuum (though as you know they only found one pump).....nothing that a PA-46 Malibu couldn't also do to a pilot and his unsuspecting spouse.

"THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF AIRFRAME, ENG, PROP, OR FLT CONTROL FAILURE. ONLY ONE VACUUM PUMP WAS RECOVERED. THE INSTRUMENT PANEL AND AUTOPLT SYSTEM WERE DESTROYED."

I think about this every time I'm on O2 crossing the rocks from west to east....

 

[wabower]

I know the facts quite well, including quite a few that nobody else knows and I was never asked about. I was at the accident scene shortly after daylight the next day, and have never seen such devastation of an airplane. Props 10' into the ground, no single piece remained bigger than an office desk.

The fact is, however, he only flew that last fatal leg (at night) because we had purchased the twin and he was somewhat influenced by all the "and I feel more comfortable at night over the mountains in a twin" bullshlt that some M/E pilots like to throw around, including the two-of-everything that's supposed to make it all better. When flying the single, he customarily stopped for the night in Farmington and flew on to OJC the next morning.

The accident can't be blamed on lack of training, however, since Jim and I both trained extensively and regularly at FSI, and had purchased an unlimited training package that allowed us unlimited access to the sim and an instructor at any time. So whatever happened to him can't be blamed on lack of training, and we'll never know for sure. Richard and JMac were/are good friends, and borrowed the 340 sim at Wichita in an (unsuccessful) attempt to recreate the accident and determine how the plane ended up in the spiral dive (vertical barrel roll) from which Jim did not recover. They published the results in Flying, but I didn't keep a copy of the article, just know that it was published sometime in the first half of 1987.

Wayne, I know this is painful. But that accident probably had nothing to do with redundant powerplants. Disoriented, falling out the sky from FL 210 could be anything- cabin pressure loss and hypoxia, failed gyro, unlikely failed vacuum (though as you know they only found one pump).....nothing that a PA-46 Malibu couldn't also do to a pilot and his unsuspecting spouse.

"THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF AIRFRAME, ENG, PROP, OR FLT CONTROL FAILURE. ONLY ONE VACUUM PUMP WAS RECOVERED. THE INSTRUMENT PANEL AND AUTOPLT SYSTEM WERE DESTROYED."

I think about this every time I'm on O2 crossing the rocks from west to east....

 

[gismo]

Thread drift...
Skymaster sounds like a really cool design that incorporates the best of the both worlds - single and twin. Why that design is not widely adopted in GA?
I never flew one and if someone in the Bay area who has one can give me a ride in it I would appreciate that.

My impression of the 337 is that like the single engine Cessnas it evolved from it flies like a truck but is otherwise an OK airplane. There are some downsides though. Most twins can be equipped with a decent sized radar antenna in the nose and offer significant baggage space ahead of the cockpit to save room in the cabin for people and help balance the load. The Skymaster has neither although it does have a reasonably large CG range. It's probably louder inside the cabin than some although most unpressurized twins are loud enough that ANR headsets are necessary so that's probably not a significant issue for comparison. The lack of an significant asymmetrical thrust issues should be a plus safety wise although for some reason the record doesn't show that. One negative safety factor is that it's rather easy for the loss of one engine on takeoff to go unnoticed if the pilot isn't paying close attention to the gauges. There have also been a number of accidents attributed to unintentional attempts to take off with the rear engine stopped from the get go but a policy of advancing the throttle on the rear engine first ought to eliminate that particular issue. I'm not fond of the landing gear system used on high wing Cessnas either. Lots of complexity and opportunities for failure plus it just looks stupid when the mains come up after takeoff IMO. Finally I think there's an common attitude that a AMEL cert limited to centerline thrust is wimpy.

 

[Ted]

You have to have the temperament to do the mental calculation for every departure. If you do not have that, don't go multi. PLEASE. If you do have that, you can start anytime.

+1. On every takeoff, I have my actions planned before I take the runway (typically before I get to the airport). The decision is made before the action.

Wayne, I know this is painful. But that accident probably had nothing to do with redundant powerplants. Disoriented, falling out the sky from FL 210 could be anything- cabin pressure loss and hypoxia, failed gyro, unlikely failed vacuum (though as you know they only found one pump).....nothing that a PA-46 Malibu couldn't also do to a pilot and his unsuspecting spouse.

"THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF AIRFRAME, ENG, PROP, OR FLT CONTROL FAILURE. ONLY ONE VACUUM PUMP WAS RECOVERED. THE INSTRUMENT PANEL AND AUTOPLT SYSTEM WERE DESTROYED."

I think about this every time I'm on O2 crossing the rocks from west to east....

Agreed... and Wayne's response seems to support this.

 

[wabower]

I've been living with this deal and the ongoing issues with his kids for 24 years, so it's old hat to me. We still don't know what happened, and won't ever know.

This much I can tell you, however. If you ever suffer a lateral upset in a Cessna twin, immediately pull power to idle, throw out all the drag and don't worry about losing gear doors and that stuff. You have a very short time to stabilize the airplane before the spiral dive starts, at which time it is unrecoverable, the 6G forces render you unconscious and you will splatter like a bug on a windshield. Our plane was traveling in excess of 300 knots when it hit the ground 87* nose down. They had already picked up the big pieces when I arrived at the scene, so I mostly picked up fingers and toes, rings, watches and other personal effects.

+1. On every takeoff, I have my actions planned before I take the runway (typically before I get to the airport). The decision is made before the action.



Agreed... and Wayne's response seems to support this.